ecnarf

Well, Jews don't believe in hell, so I've got that base covered. And the Catholics are all about anal, and always have been.

It absolutely boggles my mind that Pascal's Wager is taken seriously at all.

You know, I hadn't been considering it, but that just made me want to do it that much more. Your argument is a bunch of things. 1. Extremely convenient. When there is no space for god within the operating universe, you simply declare him outside of it and therefore beyond all criticism or argument. 2. Fallacious. What created god? Where does god exist? 3. A watered down version of every other fallacious theology that couldn't keep up with reality.

It's most likely someone in the family doing it. For serious.

Dumbasses. Lose the cell phones. Did they not think of that as their cell phone costs rose to 1000 a month?

Because you speak of objective rationality yet when it comes to morals, you say that an individual's morals are all that matters. What the hell? The ONLY thing that makes us human is the definition of symbols? That's both at the same time ridiculously broad and ridiculously narrow. Because you risk confusing genuine evil with genuine virtue? Because you're making dangerous absolutist arguments that do not differentiate between a religious person throwing 10 bucks a week into the collection plate and mass murderers in terms of evil? Generalizations are still very useful. If 90% of a given group wears red shirts and only 10% wears blue, it's useful to say that the group wears red. It is useless to try to destroy the argument by pointing out the 10%, a considerable minority. If 90% of a band's songs suck, then that band sucks.

I blame it on you and your saturnine nature.

Hey, I know a coffee house of a campus we can use... EDIT: lol i go to university... EDIT EDIT: You have to imagine I said that in a very unenthusiastic tone, though.

So am I the only one who really can't stand this whole "Let's hold hands and sit in a circle and sing songs" worldview? If I get into an argument over something like this it's not so I can read someone's opinion and disagree yet (pretend to?) pretentiously respect it. Regardless of the fact that it's the internet or how much swearing is thrown at me I can't take an argument seriously without at, the very least, some logic and reason used, rather than simple assertion of opinion.

It's funny... there are fewer theists in the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences than there are women. And there is a higher concentration of atheists towards the biological sciences, where people have the greatest understanding of the stupidly complex operations of life.

It's funny because that mixture of gases to support higher life was created by, you guessed it, lower life. Earth's early atmosphere contained mostly methane, nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxide. A famous experiment involving these gases and electric sparks to simulate lightning have been shown to create amino acids, the building blocks of protein. As for the rest of it, yeah. Luck pretty much explains it.

That'll get us nowhere. "It's just what I believe, okay? It makes me feel better / I can't explain it / [irrelevant piece of anecdote that doesn't actually support their belief]"

Why is it more logical that such a being exists? Uh... huh...

Well as t -> infinity, the cost of reading it would approach zero.

In my defense, I had nothing better to do.

See, here's what I don't get. You're using unselfish and altruistic as synonyms for irrationality; where you were saying a few pages are there was no unselfishness, only rational and irrational selfishness, you're consistently using unselfish. Take the Hitler and the Jews argument: he no doubt wanted them all dead for selfish, irrational reasons. But selfishness and irrationality does not make someone unselfish. Why the need to consistently redefine words? To say that he was selfish, irrational and altruistic would suffice, but throwing unselfish in there is just confusing and semantical. I do agree that for every example I've listed, there are aspects of the given behaviours that are inherently selfish in a way that merely appear unselfish (used in the typical sense). In what few scientific postulates there are for the basis of most common human "morality", there exists a core of selfishness - if I am nice to this person, they will be nice to me, and so on. Oh, absolutely. I may not be able to "prove" there is no god, but logical exercises can sure as hell disprove religious belief by showing the fallacies and inconsistencies within them. Provided that you are dogmatic (an only slightly ironic use of the term) in applying logic and use a mathematical basis for it, there is no difficulty in showing that atheism is inherently more rational than any belief in a theistic god or other supernatural claims taken on faith. How does that follow? If people are collectively being unselfish or selfish in a group... that makes the group selfish or unselfish. Because of police officers and the laws that they enact. Criminals are brought to justice by people. Jailtime isn't a natural consequence of comitting a crime, as there is no law of nature requiring it nor is there an omniscient deity out there to catch criminals and put them into jail. It's a human process. Obviously the individual police officer is of little consequence, but the collective group of police officers, lawyers, judges, etc., are what make it all happen. You don't have to justify your use of the "but he started it!" argument. It's a simplistic way of phrasing it but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks that WWII was not an entirely justifiable war, even though we didn't know that the Holocaust was going on until the soldiers reached Germany. The reason war was declared was selfish - Europe would no doubt have been taken over, and it was a rational response. Selfishness does not necessarily make something unjust.

Don't think I was offended or need to be apologized to for the go fuck yourself comment. I know that I brought it on myself. EDIT: Shade, if I could rearrange the alphabet, I'd put your mother and I together.

Where did you correct yourself? Last thing I saw you post was go fuck yourself.

I was by no means fine with it. I just had more time to think while I was driving around. The fact you didn't even allow for the most extreme of exceptions is pretty troubling.

Seriously, dude. Just support your argument with some examples. That's all I'm asking.

I'd take other people's views into account if there were more merit to them than "well that's just what I think."

And let's not forget using blind postulates while attacking others for using examples.

Yes, it is funny. Idiomatic constructions are the worst.

Good point. Note to self: just say no to vegetarians.

Well that's a contradiction if I ever heard one.